These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nullsec Ideas

Author
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#1 - 2012-05-26 20:40:20 UTC
A couple thoughts I’ve had on how to improve nullsec, though I’m sure many members of larger Alliances (starting with my own,) will disagree on the use of the word “improve.”

Alliance Home / Capital System:
-An Alliance that claims sovereignty over two or more systems will claim one as a Capital System
-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
-Capital Systems would be changeable, but no more than once every month or if the Capital System is conquered

System Bonuses:
-Systems that an Alliance have sovereignty over should give them bonuses to help defend them
-Bonuses should provide a boost to shields or armor, these would be selected by the Alliance and used through the IHUB in that system, unupgraded systems would give no bonus
-Bonuses would be lower the farther the systems are from the Capital System
-Cost of operating Capital and Super Capital ships (in fuel) would increase or decrease based on distance from Capital System, the greater the distance in light years, the more it costs

Fortress / Port Systems:
-Selecting an upgraded station system as a Fortress / Port System would reduce the monthly maintenance fees to the same rate as the Capital System
-Only one Fortress / Port System per constellation
-Nearby upgraded systems would have a slight reduction in monthly fees based on distance
-Capital and Super Capitals fuel costs would increase or decrease based on their distance from Fortress / Port Systems on top of distance from the Capital System
-Defense bonuses would be greater in Fortress / Port Systems

These changes would allow Alliances to better defend their space during times of invasion, would be costly to larger Alliances that over extend their borders and limit force projection for Capital and Super Capital Ships.

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric

Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#2 - 2012-05-26 20:51:39 UTC
Or they would just break up their alliances into smaller organizations at the optimal scale.

Unless there are scaling benefits to match the scaling drawbacks, people will just set-up a convoluted work around to avoid the downsides of an excessively large organization. Obstructive game mechanics are bad.
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#3 - 2012-05-26 21:26:06 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
Or they would just break up their alliances into smaller organizations at the optimal scale.

Unless there are scaling benefits to match the scaling drawbacks, people will just set-up a convoluted work around to avoid the downsides of an excessively large organization. Obstructive game mechanics are bad.


I think the biggest downside here would be the Capital Ship fuel costs and as long as they didn't max out higher than they do now, it wouldn't be a major issue. Same thing with the monthly fees, as long as they max out at current values or pretty close to them, I don't think it'd be an issue. Of course, I could be wrong, but these are just base ideas.

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric